Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add espennilsen/pi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/espennilsen/piWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/espennilsen/pi/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/espennilsen/pi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/espennilsen/pi/code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/espennilsen/pi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/espennilsen/pi/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00048 | $0.00721 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Systematic code review for Espen's TypeScript/Node.js projects.
Process
-
Understand scope — Read the changed files or the area under review:
# For git changes git diff --name-only HEAD~1 git diff HEAD~1 # For a specific area find src/ -name "*.ts" -newer <reference-file> -
Read the code — Use the
readtool on each file. Don't guess. -
Analyze against checklist — Score each category.
-
Report — Use the output format below.
Review Checklist
Correctness
- Logic handles edge cases (null, empty, boundary values)
- Error handling is explicit (no swallowed errors, no bare
catch {}) - Async code handles rejection/cancellation properly
- Types are accurate (no unnecessary
any, proper narrowing)
Security
- No secrets or credentials in code
- User input is validated/sanitized before use
- SQL queries use parameterized statements (no string interpolation)
- File paths are resolved safely (no path traversal)
- Auth checks are present where needed
Performance
- No N+1 queries or unbounded loops over large datasets
- Heavy operations are async or streamed (not blocking)
- Database queries use appropriate indexes
- Large responses are paginated or truncated
Maintainability
- Functions do one thing with clear names
- No magic numbers or hardcoded values that should be config
- Types and interfaces are defined (not inline object shapes)
- Dead code and unused imports are removed
- Comments explain why, not what
Project Conventions
- Follows existing patterns in the codebase
- File naming and directory structure is consistent
- Error messages are helpful for debugging
- Logging is appropriate (not too noisy, not silent on errors)
Output Format
## Code Review: [scope]
### Summary
One paragraph: what the code does, overall quality assessment.
### Issues
#### 🔴 Critical
- [file:line] Description and fix
#### 🟡 Important
- [file:line] Description and suggestion
#### 🔵 Minor
- [file:line] Nit or style suggestion
### What's Good
- Call out well-written code, good patterns, clever solutions
### Recommendations
- Prioritized list of changes, starting with most impactful
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 97 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 1cd20c92dc59
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository espennilsen/pi (122 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 721 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…